Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "The Lunduke Journal" channel.

@Kenji314159 And to make EU people bow for their government in every single comment on social media with a good smile in their faces and invisible shackles in their hands
6
We saw records of layoffs since 2022 and before, this is nothing new nor represents some "bigger thing".
3
@xpusostomos I think you don't even know the basis of open source to come here and say this. Even GNU (which is arguably less free than most open source due to the copyleft thing) states that it is "free as in free speech, not as in free beer", the price can absolutely be above zero.
2
No? Nobody really "founds" an idea like open source, they exist before and someone gives a name to then (and Stallman was not the inventor of the notion of open source neither), the term "open source" was coined much later by Christine Peterson and a literal libertarian (Eric S. Raymond) was one of the direct responsibles for spreading it.
2
@ACABTyler Corporations are owned by people, and the knowledge of what Marx meant don't invalidate his points.
1
@coolbugfacts1234 > The fact that for most there is no alternative to labor exploitation by capital does not negate the fact that it is exploitative. It proves the point that society is organized in such a way to favor exploitation by capital. I like how you make good logical fallacies, like a good communist. How about you prove the statements you made? He never said that the reason for labor not being exploitative is because there is no alternative, he explicitly said the exact motive instead and you <ignored> it, which is <the offering of remuneration in return for labor>, and to be more specific than him, the <early remuneration in return for labor>.
1
@coolbugfacts1234 No, 3rd world countries are poor literally because of socialism (or wars), I live in one myself and we are only poor insofar the government wants to provide "social justice" and with that comes 3000 taxation laws and an extremely inhospitable environment for business and production. I also find it funny that you said you would not disagree with a libertarian without reading Mises or Hayek, the funny thing is that neither of those were libertarians.
1
yeah.
1
@tschak909 Bro, what the heck are you talking about? In the manifesto he literally states this: "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." It is the CORE of communism the abolition of private property, it is not something hidden or exagerated, you either are lying hard or you had been deceived.
1
 @ФеофанЭтополедолжнобытьзаполне Of course, marxism is not socialism communism per se, but he's clearly talking about the marxist notion of socialism/communism.
1
@zp491 Personal property IS private property, it is just not private property in the marxist definition (and even in this sense Copyleft is also NOT the "antithesis of private property").
1
@skaruts > If you don't require the state, who enforces the contract, then? Will you beat up the other party if they breach contract? Yes. Do you have a problem with it? And no, you don't "always require the state to enforce contracts peacefully", because the same principles you use to say the state will solve it peacefully can be applied to ANY organizational unit that is meant to enforce contracts, be it private or the state. This is the most reasonable stance to take as you did not provided evidence for what you said. > The book copy is your property to keep and use how you see fit, but the work inside the book is not your property to do as you please. No, it quite literally is, have you seen about borrowing books from friends? The unique way of enforcing the own notion of intellectual property is by violating private property in a massive scale, which is one of the main points in this argumentation.
1
@skaruts > But the point is, do you really want people to enforce property ownership and contracts themselves? Also yes. > And what happens when you fail to enforce ownership of what's rightfully yours? The same exact thing that happens when you have a state, you seek for help from your neighboors and family, or call the police (the private policy in this case). And to be even more fair, I live in a country where if I got stolen the policy would literally do nothing, when it cannot solve < 50% of the homicides counting on the state for solving robbery is trully an act of generosity. > What happens when you're the weakest? I make friends with the strongest. > And what happens when people can't agree on who is the rightful owner of something? They discuss and settle it in a common ground, like ALWAYS. > Which part of "you need the state to enforce contracts peacefully" did you not understand? Again, you did not proved it. > Are you trying to argue that if I take what you spent the last year working on and pretend it's my work and just go around selling it, that it's not theft? With take you mean you will remove it from my possession? If so it is still pretty much theft. If you are talking about ideas, then no it is not theft, but telling you made it when in reality it was me (or the other guy, in this case) still pretty much configures fraud on your clients, which is clearly liable and a violation of their property rights. > You're literally saying that your work isn't naturally yours, and that someone taking it willy-nilly is not theft. Nobody said that. > There's no such thing as inherent human rights. Rights don't enforce themselves naturally. If there was no state enforcing rights, there would be no rights at all. People would have to fight for what they believe, or hire muscle to fight for them. You are free to believe whatever you want, but nobody said for a right to be natural it would be "naturally enforced" (whatever you mean by that), by natural rights we mean the rights we discover investigating the nature of man, the things that are objectively right or wrong and this will give rise for their enforcement. The state is merely one of the many possible actors that could enforce rights.
1
It was not a "bad faith" interpretation, it was a literal conclusion. He did not omited the fact that the person denied the request for changing the title and literally showed it in the video. It is also not clear for me what do you mean by "not a place to be funny/edgy/whatever" and then giving a clearly malicious sample of title, this is already begging the question that he is wrong, not justifying why the title he made should be seen as an example of this.
1
@pokefreak2112 Why exactly their mischievous interpretation for the title is not the weird thing?
1
> Incredibly few people are doing it for the rewards of capital. Prove it. > I personally will not argue FOSS is communism, because communism is more about forced equity and democracy in practice. From where are you taking your definitions exactly?
1
 @coolbugfacts1234 Projection? You mean like Stallman did and many socialistic-leaned writters tried to do (like Sartre or Bouveir)?
1
I think you just got something wrong, those companies benefit from making those statements, its just the default ESG agenda.
1
@ShadeAKAhayate I really love how all things people say to respond you are from "propaganda booklets", meanwhile all of your visions are accuratedly baked by reliable sources that surely contains no propaganda whatsoever.
1
@rezah336 Capitalism don't mean private ownership, it merely requires a market with private ownership, this don't mean that <everything> in capitalism must be solely based on exclusively private ownserhip. This is also blatantly a problematic conclusion of yours, as everyone only has the right for my work because I WANTED IT, so I freely gave it to them (for me to give something to others, this thing must be mine first). The question is that I find this kind of discussion counterproducent anyways, because you cannot talk about owning ideas or bytes in a machine.
1
@yellingintothewind > But what about the person who has this page of source code land in their lap? No libertarian believes the person who got it has any duties whatsoever, this is a thorny strawman of the ideas. Also, saying Kinsella "holds copyrights in his works" is a very bold statement, he would never sue anyone for merely infringing the copyrights of his books (or they would be literally contradictory with his own beliefs), then the reason for that must the other, but you surely is not willing to give him the benefit of doubt, because it is more important for you to cite this fact than to examine the contents of his writtings and his beliefs.
1
@yellingintothewind > [Unless you are going to go full "no true scotsman", be careful making claims like "no libertarian", unless in regard to the NAP itself.] This is not a kind of "no true scotsman", I'm taking a principled instance on what it means to be a libertarian. Saying that "no libertarian would become a tyrant" for example is simply saying "if a libertarian become a tyrant, is he still a libertarian?" (for obvious reasons, not, because being a libertarian IS agreeing to certain moral and ethical principles and acting according to them, you are not a libertarian by merely declaring yourself as one). That's why, for example, Walter Block himself was declassified as a libertarian by Hoppe (part of his article: "If this collectivistic nonsense is not enough to disqualify Block as a libertarian, the following exhibit, demonstrating its monstrous consequences, should remove even the slightest remaining doubt that he is anything but a libertarian, a Rothbardian or a sweet and nice person.") because he was defending atrocities in regards with recent conflicts. Being a libertarian is not an identity, it is a burden that you need to carry appropriatedly. In this sense I would rather like to qualify more my affirmation: "If you think someone that is not related to your intellectual creations whatsoever has any duties to you in regards to the fact that your mind "produced" it (duties in the state sense or having responsibility to not disclose or not share and to have legal consequences because of it), merely by entering in contact with the thing and gathering those ideas in your own mind, then you are harming an innocent and thereby you are acting against the own principles you claimed to defend.", which in this sense I think reasonably justifies my initial broad affirmation. > [Kinsella does hold copyright in his works, because there is, at present, no viable way for him to not hold that copyright] I did not denied that, I said "saying he holds copyright is a bold statement" in the sense that for you to hold something you must also <enforce> this same thing, which I deny he would do (this resonates with his theory of property rights as well, as for him not enforcing your property and intentions over something implicates in not owning it -- naturally, this is a simplification). But as yourself stated, if there is "no viable way for him to not hold that copyright" then I don't understand what is the irony on it thereof. > [All that said, please go make sure you actually got the entire context of this thread, as YT has a tendency to screw with comments, and I believe you are confused about me. I bear no ill will toward Kinsella, and I agree essentially entirely with his assessment of the current system. It is only his abstract theory crafting where I do not agree, not that I strongly disagree either, I just don't find idle theory crafting a worthwhile use of time. Much as I think constantly answering "but who would build the roads" is generally a waste of time. The real answer in both cases is people would figure it out, in a context-specific way.] Hmmm, I see. I think this comment of yours is also hidden, because I cannot see it when I click on reading all of them (maybe it's just a loading thing), but I got the impression you had at least something against him. Either way, I'm not also posing myself against you in a personal sense, this is more of because I found your comment being very strange. I also don't consider myself a particular follower of Kinsella ideas (even though I readed his writtings and agree with many things he says), I can also respect your position that people would figure things out in the real situation (although I don't find this a response to the formulations libertarians do for responding people, theory also impacts the practice and the "abstract theory crafting" -- as you named it -- can also have effects on reality, it is also a good way of verifying the consistency of the theories you defend).
1
@xpusostomos From where are you gathering your definitions of "ancap", "socialism" and "commune"?
1
@sciencedaemon The question is that this is not the "simplest answer", you need to assume a TON of things in order to think that in this case. Meanwhile wokes are already being offended on behalf of all "discriminated people" out there, so it is pretty simple to assume that it was, again, a highly politized person taking it seriously and not the supposedly offended group member himself.
1